Monroe Planning and Zoning commissioners to discuss far reaching housing law this week

MONROE, Conn. — A controversial Connecticut housing bill that the Democratic Party majority says will go a long way toward addressing the state’s shortage of affordable housing, and most Republicans say will take away local zoning control, was approved last November, mostly along party lines, and signed into law by Gov. Ned Lamont.

Monroe’s state delegation is divided on the issue. Sen. Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, D-Bridgeport, voted in favor of the legislation, while Sen. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, and Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, voted against it.

Now town leaders and planning and zoning officials throughout the state are trying to understand how House Bill 8002, which allows housing in commercial zones as of right, will impact their communities.

Among the requirements, the bill mandates that all Connecticut municipalities adopt new Housing Growth Plans to address affordable housing needs, replacing the previous five-year plan requirements of Connecticut General Statute 8-30j. 

“Connecticut’s housing shortage is among the most severe in the country,” Lamont had said at a press conference about the bill. “It is driving up costs for working families, deterring businesses from investing or growing, and worsening homelessness. Simply put, the status quo is unsustainable. While we have made significant steps forward in recent years to increase our housing stock, we need to do more to address this urgent need.”

“As I’ve said many times before, we will not be able to reach these housing targets without the support and collaboration of municipalities that can help execute these plans, including through investments in infrastructure,” Lamont said.

The governor said he consulted with state lawmakers, municipal leaders, housing advocates, and nonprofit partners to craft policies that will have “a real-world impact and implement the tools we need to succeed in building more housing.”

“This comprehensive proposal takes strong steps toward addressing this crisis and will help Connecticut reach these goals,” Lamont said.

Monroe First Selectman Terry Rooney was among the municipal leaders who strongly opposed a previous proposal with similar goals, called House Bill 5002, which the governor went on to veto. Lamont told the legislature to address people’s concerns and come back with a new bill, resulting in H.B. 8002.

While many Democrats and housing advocates believe the revised bill does not go far enough, Rooney agrees with fellow Republicans who say it takes away local authority over zoning.

“Monroe is at an unfortunate disadvantage,” Rooney said of the new housing bill. “After years of slow commercial interest, we are left with a significant amount of commercial pieces that can be developed with nine units as of right on Route 25. As a town, we recognize the potential impact this bill could have. Since commercial interest has increased due to a competitive mill rate of 28.67 down from 38.21, we are confident that our commercial zones will see structures and businesses we have needed for decades.”

“This bill creates a large amount of additional work for our land use department,” Rooney added. “However, we will do what we need to do by law while always fighting for the projects that are best for Monroe before any state-subsidized contractor comes in and slaps up subpar State mandated projects as of right using the governor-supported H.B. 8002.”

The first selectman said he believes the town had been making progress before the new bill was passed into law.

“Monroe has done the right thing in recent years regarding housing,” Rooney said. “Many approved housing projects that contain affordable units have not been built. For example, Pond View and the Turkey Roost project contain some affordable units. Turkey Roost, however,  is an approximate 60 to 70 million dollar project to complete successfully and those investors are just not out there as of yet for Monroe.”

On Feb. 2, Monroe Planning and Zoning Administrator Kathleen Gallagher said her staff anticipates starting conversations about Public Act 25/H.B. 8002 with Planning and Zoning commissioners this week.

“Staff has been awaiting the issuance of the Connecticut Council of Governments Summary, which is anticipated to be released this week,” she said. “In preparation for those conversations, the first selectman asked staff to attend a seminar on the bill on January 22, 2026, presented by the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association.”

Gallagher said the bill requires several zoning text amendments to be adopted by July 1, 2026.

“Given the quick timeline, we will begin high-level regulation conversations next week at our subcommittee meeting, with continued discussion at subsequent subcommittee and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings,” she said Feb. 2. “This initiative will require a significant commitment of the department’s staff time over the next few years, as preparation of the required Growth Management Plans involves substantial upfront work that must be completed this year, along with initial conversations with MetroCOG.”

It started with H.B. 5002

Monroe’s entire delegation had expressed opposition to H.B. 5002 last spring, but Gadkar-Wilcox said changes to the section on off street parking factored into her support for the new bill.

“This bill changes the parking requirements,” she said of H.B. 8002. “Before, 24 units overrode the city requirement for minimum off-street parking. That was reduced to 16 units.”

“When the governor vetoed the bill in June he made it clear he wanted changes, specifically to fair share,” Scott said of how many units each municipality would be expected to build. “But for all intents and purposes the bill is very similar to back then, just watered down.”

Though it is not as far reaching, Scott said local zoning boards are still losing control over parking requirements, and allowing residential housing in commercial zones as of right takes away requirements to gain approval for these types of developments in a public hearing.

Perillo said revisions to the original bill did not persuade him to vote for 8002.

“To me, the biggest difference is that instead of the state of Connecticut determining the best way to introduce affordable housing into a community, the regional councils of governments are now tasked with that,” he said. “Personally, I just don’t see that as being a significant improvement, certainly not enough for me to vote for the bill.”

“At the end of the day, it still takes control away from local planning and zoning commissions that were duly elected by the residents of their towns,” Perillo added. “At least when you go to the ballot box and elect planning and zoning commissioners, if they don’t do what you want, you can vote them out of office. You can’t do that with the COG. The town of Monroe is at the mercy of bureaucrats they may never meet and probably never heard of.”

Scott said Monroe’s zoning bases decisions on sewers or lack of sewers, but that is bypassed by H.B. 8002.

“They can just come in and build for all intents and purposes,” he said. “There is safety and health, some things have to be looked at, but the public can’t speak out for or against. A lot of the local control from townspeople, boards and commissions or town offices is stripped away.”

Gadkar-Wilcox expressed her belief that there is still local control over zoning.

“I like the housing growth plans, because the towns have a say,” Gadkar-Wilcox said. “A town can say, ‘here’s what works for us,’ and decide how to get to the goal of affordable housing. It’s the town that has to submit the plan, so there is local control. The towns are taking the lead, but the towns have to submit the plan to be vetted.”

Scott said allowing residential development in commercial zones could result in Monroe losing commercial tax revenue, along with apartment buildings leading to heavier traffic on town roads.

Perillo agreed with Scott about the loss of commercial tax revenue. “Commercial land is more valuable on a square footage basis and has less impact on costs of a town, more specifically schools,” Perillo said.

“I think Monroe will be stunted some, because we don’t have sewers, it will limit what developers want,” Scott said. “We’ll put that on the list of why we can’t add more housing. But they may give us money to get sewers, so it’s not an excuse.”

Gadkar-Wilcox said the bill provides resources and technical support for municipalities, including funding to support infrastructure projects for things like sewers and roads. Connecticut is also offering a five percent bonus on state school construction reimbursements for towns adopting qualifying housing plans.

“If the town doesn’t have the capacity to put together a plan, the COG can,” she said of Councils of Governments. “People will take the lead if there is an incentive to get money back.”

Aside from benefiting the homeless population, Gadkar-Wilcox said providing more affordable housing could help police officers, teachers and others to live in the towns they work in, and divorced parents could keep their children in the same school district.

“People who work in the community should afford to live there,” she said. “I like this bill because it’s a bridge. It addresses the fact that it’s a statewide issue, but allows the towns to decide how it can be implemented in their local district. I’m particularly excited about the transit oriented development we desperately need in Connecticut.”

Perillo agrees on the need for residential development near transportation centers and for old commercial properties in cities that are now blighted, but not in “forcing apartments on our suburbs.”

Every five years, Monroe will have to come up with a plan of how it will meet its housing affordability goals. Monroe will be assigned a number of units it is supposed to add over the next five to 10 years, according to Scott, adding updates to the state will be required.

Scott said the definition of what is affordable housing is sometimes different than what the state classifies as affordable housing.

“You can have all tiny homes for the whole town, but it would not be considered affordable, because it doesn’t meet the state of Connecticut’s standards,” he said. “Half could be mobile home parks, but if it doesn’t fit within the criteria, it doesn’t count.”

‘A bad process’

Scott said the legislative process is broken, because many sections of this new bill did not have a public hearing, which is the normal process of how a bill is approved, “so the public didn’t have a chance to weigh in.”

Scott said legislators saw a 99-page preliminary version of the bill on a Friday and the final version of the bill was “dropped on us” at 9:51 a.m.” on the following Wednesday morning.

“We went to the House to vote on this. It was gaveled in at 10:30 a.m.,” he said of the legislative session. “We talked about housing pretty much right away and there was a debate on that. To me, it’s shady that they would do this. It’s not surprising. The special session was supposed to be October, but they conveniently pushed it until after the local elections. It’s not a popular bill.”

“They won a lot of seats throughout the state, but they played politics with this bill,” Scott said. “I blame the governor and Democratic leadership for playing politics with this housing bill when that’s not what the people want. The process was bad.”

“Unfortunately, it happens too often in Hartford,” Perillo agreed. “You’ve got a bill that never had a public hearing and was written behind closed doors. It was handed to members of the House of Representative 24 hours before they had to vote on it. That’s not good government.”

All respectful comments with the commenter’s first and last name are welcome.